LI WANG V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-70531 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LI WANG, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-70531 Agency No. A206-340-086 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Li Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on Wang’s omission of her mother’s threat from her original and amended written asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016) (prior omission supported adverse credibility determination where new allegations were more compelling). Wang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Wang did not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Wang’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Wang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or 2 19-70531 acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-70531
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
